Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission upholds zoning administrator; denies car-wash appeal for Greengate Plaza lot
Summary
The Canal Winchester Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3–2 on April 13, 2026 to deny an administrative appeal from Express Wash Concepts LLC seeking to overturn a zoning administrator’s determination that a standalone car wash is a prohibited use at 9875 Greengate Boulevard.
On April 13, 2026 the Canal Winchester Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3–2 to deny an administrative appeal from Express Wash Concepts LLC seeking to overturn the zoning administrator’s February 17 determination that a standalone car wash is a prohibited use at 9875 Greengate Boulevard.
Attorney Michael Freriedman, representing the applicant, told the commission: "The question before this body is rather simple. Are car washes a permitted use of the property? The answer is yes." Freriedman argued the Greengate planned-commercial text imports the permitted and conditionally permitted uses from the 2001 zoning code and therefore car washes should be allowed unless the Greengate text itself were explicitly amended.
City staff and the law department countered that the property lies within the Violet Point Overlay District and that the overlay introduced a specific prohibited-use list (1175 F1C) when it was amended; staff pointed to the overlay’s applicability and to exhibits used in prior Kroger reviews to show the prohibited-use list applies to the overlay area. The law department advised the commission on procedure and offered the motion language for the appeal vote.
After closing the hearing, the commission voted on a motion to "grant the administrative appeal" (a yes vote would have found staff’s decision incorrect). The roll call was: Mr. Richie — yes; Mr. Donahue — yes; Miss Gooden — no; Miss McDonald — no; Mr. Paulgrove — no. With two in favor and three opposed, the motion failed and the zoning administrator’s determination was upheld.
Because the appeal was denied, the applicant may pursue an appeal to city council or submit additional materials; if the commission had granted the appeal, the applicant’s full final development plan would have returned for review by the commission. The commission’s discussion focused on competing legal interpretations of the interplay between the Greengate development text (which references the 2001 code) and the later Violet Point Overlay District (2012) and on whether any ambiguity must be resolved in the property owner’s favor under Ohio law.
